5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Novomyrhorod, Ukraine.
6.  On 28 February 2005 L. burgled a house belonging to Zh., stealing fifty metres of cable, five aluminium cooking pots, a sewing machine, two religious icons and some scrap metal. On the same day L. sold several of the items (allegedly the cooking pots, the sewing machine and some metal corner brackets) to the applicant, who paid him 40 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH ‒ at the material time around 5.50 euros (EUR)).
7.  On 4 March 2005 the Novomyrhorod District Police Department (Новомиргородський районний відділ Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Кіровоградській області) instituted criminal proceedings into the theft of Zh.’s property.
8.  On 22 March 2005 the Novomyrhorodskyy District Court issued a warrant to search the applicant’s house, following a request to that end by an investigating officer of the Novomyrhorod District Police Department. The court noted that it was reasonable to suspect from the investigating officer’s request that some of the property stolen from Zh.’s house had been hidden in the applicant’s house, since the applicant had refused to help the police with their inquiries in that regard.
9.  According to the applicant, on 24 March 2005 ten men in civilian clothing entered the yard of her house and told her that they were police officers and were carrying a warrant for the search of her house. They did not produce any proof of identity. The applicant was shown the warrant of 22 March 2005 but was not told which particular items she had to surrender to the police. The police officers verbally abused her and one of them took away her walking stick and pushed her. She fell to the ground and injured her knee. Since 2002 the applicant has been registered as category one (перша група інвалідності) disabled and, according to her, cannot walk without a stick. In support of her application, she submitted a medical certificate from 2007, which states that she is unable to walk unaided. She alleged that after being pushed to the ground she had no choice but to crawl after the police officers. Once inside the house, one of the police officers told the applicant that they were looking for a sewing machine and 100 metres of cable. By contrast, in a complaint made on 12 May 2005, the applicant stated that the police officer had told her they were looking for cooking pots and metal brackets (see paragraph 19 below). According to the applicant, the police officers seized six cooking pots, two axes and six metres of metal corner brackets. While conducting the search, they had torn a small door off a mirrored cabinet, broke furniture, ripped wall-hanging rugs, threw the applicant’s books and medication on the floor, and rummaged through her personal correspondence.
10.  As part of her application, the applicant submitted a photo allegedly taken inside her house after the search. It shows the room in a complete mess; a small door has been torn off a mirrored cabinet, some furniture appears to be broken and medication is strewn across the floor.
11.  According to the search record (протокол обшуку) which was drawn up by a police officer, B., and signed by two witnesses, K. and R., and S. (described on the record as “a person present during the search”) but not the applicant, the police officers had been looking for “a sewing machine, cooking pots, metal corner brackets and [illegible]”. Five aluminium cooking pots and several metal corner brackets had been seized. The search had been conducted between 10.20 a.m. and noon. It was noted that “no statements or remarks were made”. One of the copies of the search record made available to the Court does not indicate clearly what time the search finished.
12.  The Government submitted a copy of a statement made by K., who was questioned on 24 March 2005 between 12.20 p.m. and 12.40 p.m. He stated that on that day at 10 a.m. he had been invited by police officers to witness a search of the applicant’s house. She had refused to surrender the items asked for, saying that she had sold the sewing machine. She had behaved aggressively and had sworn at the police officers.
13.  The Government also submitted undated statements made by F. and G., police officers who had conducted the search with B. They contended that they had not broken any furniture and had not left the property in a mess. The wording of both officers’ statements is identical. In a separate document, F. made a further statement to the effect that the applicant had behaved very aggressively and had tried to hit the police officers with a stick. There had been an axe in one of the rooms but somebody had removed it from the applicant’s reach. According to F., the applicant had complained about the police officers because she had been ashamed of purchasing stolen goods and her neighbours had found out about it. She had wanted to “redeem” herself by accusing the police of unlawful behaviour.
14.  According to witness statements of 25 March 2005 made by Kh. and Bi. (it is unclear whether they were the applicant’s acquaintances or relatives), when they had arrived at the applicant’s house at an unspecified time on 24 March 2005, her belongings and medication had been all over the floor, the door of a mirrored cabinet had been torn off, and there had been various items scattered everywhere “so it had been impossible to enter a room without stepping on something” and “everything had been turned upside down”. The applicant had been in a “critical condition” so they had called her an ambulance. The applicant had told Bi. that the mess had been created by the police officers. Bi. stated that he had realised that the applicant “had been beaten up by somebody”. Kh. stated that the applicant had told him that she had been pushed to the ground.
15.  At 4.25 p.m. on 24 March 2005 an ambulance was called for the applicant. It was noted in the patient report form that the applicant had been previously diagnosed with ischaemia, atherosclerotic cardiosclerosis, encephalosclerosis and a post-stroke condition. She was given nitroglycerin and various other types of medication. The exact reason why the ambulance was called out was not mentioned.
16.  On 26 March 2005 the applicant consulted a doctor and complained about an injury to her left knee.
17.  On an unidentified date she and her son, D., complained to the Novomyrhorod District Prosecutor’s Office about the search of her house, alleging that unnecessary force had been used against her.
18.  On 7 April 2005 the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant’s son’s complaint, finding that the police officers had informed the applicant about the warrant of 22 March 2005 and had requested her to surrender the stolen goods but that she had refused. During the search, some of the goods stolen from Zh.’s house had been recovered. According to B., F. and K., nobody had pushed the applicant to the ground or had injured her.
19.  On 12 May 2005 the applicant complained about the district prosecutor’s decision to the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office. In particular, she complained that only the statements made by the police officers and K. (who had arrived together) had been taken into account, while the investigating officers had disregarded statements of those who had visited the applicant and had seen what state her house had been in after the search. The applicant reiterated her previous complaints but, contrary to her earlier statement, alleged that B. had informed her that the police had been looking for cooking pots and metal corner brackets. Those items, as well as two axes, had later been seized. In reply, the applicant was informed that the decision of 7 April 2005 remained valid.
20.  On 4 October 2005 S. gave evidence that one of the police officers had pushed the applicant and she had fallen to the ground. According to S., he had helped her to stand up and sat her down on a chair. On two further occasions S. stated that “one of the police officers had taken the applicant’s stick away and had pushed her to one side” because she had threatened to injure the police officers with it. The applicant had then fallen down and hurt her knee.
21.  On 27 October 2005 a forensic medical examination was carried out on the applicant by an expert, who had been requested to establish the seriousness of her injuries. It was concluded that, according to her medical records of 25 March 2005, the applicant had sustained light bodily injuries (a bruise on the inner part of her left knee measuring 6 x 6 cm) and had been suffering from headaches and dizziness. It also concluded that the injury in question could have been caused on the date indicated by the applicant. It was also noted that the applicant had been suffering from the after-effects of a stroke which had happened in 1993. In her explanations the applicant stated that she had been pushed to the ground by a police officer on 24 March 2005.
22.  On 23 November 2005 in the course of criminal proceedings instituted following the burglary of Zh.’s house, the court found that the items seized from the applicant on 24 March 2005 had been returned to their lawful owner. L., who was found guilty of theft, gave evidence that S., his acquaintance, had sold the stolen goods on to the applicant.
23.  On 12 January 2006 the Novomyrhorodskyy District Court, following a complaint by the applicant, quashed the decision of 7 April 2005 and remitted the case to the authorities for further investigation. It found that only the applicant’s son’s complaint had been answered but not the applicant’s. The court indicated that S., who had been present during the search, had alleged that one of the police officers had used force on the applicant. That information, as well as other complaints by the applicant, had not been properly answered, namely that some of the people present during the search (in particular a police officer Rd. and a witness R.) had not been questioned, that two axes had been seized from her property, and that the search had been conducted in an inappropriate manner.
24.  Between January 2006 and March 2009 the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings on ten separate occasions following complaints by the applicant. Its refusals were based on the fact that K. and the police officers had all said that no force had been used on the applicant and that her property had not been damaged or unlawfully seized. The refusals were subsequently quashed by more senior prosecutors or by the court, and the case was remitted to the authorities for further investigation. The court noted on several occasions that the investigation authorities had failed to answer the applicant’s complaints about her injuries and the inappropriate manner in which the search had been conducted. The further investigations ordered by the court or the prosecutor lasted between ten and thirty days, each being terminated by a decision not to institute criminal proceedings.
25.  In a decision of 13 March 2009 the prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The prosecutor concluded that no axes had been seized from the applicant. Witnesses and police officers had been questioned. They stated that the applicant had behaved aggressively and had refused to sign the search record. They also said that no force had been used on the applicant and that they were unsure how the applicant’s injuries had come about.
26.  On 1 February 2010 the Novomyrhorodskyy District Court quashed the prosecutor’s decision of 13 March 2009 and remitted the case to the authorities for further investigation. The court noted that on several occasions during the course of the investigation, the prosecutor had ordered the authorities to identify everyone who had participated in the search, to properly interview K., R., Zh. and L., to check whether the police officers had thrown the applicant’s belongings out of the cupboards, and to take other steps. However, those instructions were not complied with. Moreover, despite the photograph submitted by the applicant and her requests for witnesses Do. (who also visited the applicant after the search), Kh. and Bi. to be questioned, they were not interviewed and there was no evaluation of the available evidence in this regard.
27.  On 10 February 2010 the Novomyrhorod District Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of evidence. In reaching its decision, the prosecutor referred to the evidence given by K. and the police officers, who had stated that the applicant had behaved aggressively but that nobody had used force on her. It was established that five police officers, B, F., G., Rd. and Sa., had conducted the search. B., F. and G. were subjected to further questioning. They maintained that no axes had been seized. L. stated that he and S. had sold some of the stolen items on to the applicant. It was further noted that all the police officers and witnesses who had participated in the search had undergone formal interviews. They did not know how the applicant’s injuries had been sustained. The police officers maintained that they did not damage any of the applicant’s furniture or leave her house in a mess. It was impossible to question or re-examine a number of witnesses since, for example, K. could not be located and Zh. had died. It was also impossible to question Do., Kh. and Bi. since their whereabouts were also unknown. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.